Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Mathematical induction can be informally illustrated by reference to the sequential effect of falling dominoes. [1] [2]Mathematical induction is a method for proving that a statement () is true for every natural number, that is, that the infinitely many cases (), (), (), (), … all hold.
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent, also known as Fermat's method of descent, is a particular kind of proof by contradiction [1] used to show that a statement cannot possibly hold for any number, by showing that if the statement were to hold for a number, then the same would be true for a smaller number, leading to an infinite descent and ultimately a contradiction. [2]
The induction, bounding and least number principles are commonly used in reverse mathematics and second-order arithmetic. For example, I Σ 1 {\displaystyle {\mathsf {I}}\Sigma _{1}} is part of the definition of the subsystem R C A 0 {\displaystyle {\mathsf {RCA}}_{0}} of second-order arithmetic.
Then show that for any counterexample there is a still smaller counterexample, producing a contradiction. This mode of argument is the contrapositive of proof by complete induction. It is known light-heartedly as the "minimal criminal" method [citation needed] and is similar in its nature to Fermat's method of "infinite descent".
Transfinite induction requires proving a base case (used for 0), a successor case (used for those ordinals which have a predecessor), and a limit case (used for ordinals which don't have a predecessor). Transfinite induction is an extension of mathematical induction to well-ordered sets, for example to sets of ordinal numbers or cardinal numbers.
Download QR code; Print/export Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects Wikimedia Commons; ... Mathematical induction; B. Bar induction; C. Coinduction;
The proof of this is derived from a game between the induction and the environment. Essentially, any computable induction can be tricked by a computable environment, by choosing the computable environment that negates the computable induction's prediction. This fact can be regarded as an instance of the no free lunch theorem.
In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs.It is also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions-or formulae-as-types interpretation.